Technology

37739 readers

500 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

221

Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back - Decrypt (decrypt.co)

submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

301 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski's style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference is that kicking babies is illegal whereas training and running an AI is not. Kind of a big difference.

[–] Zeus@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

did you click the thing saying that you understand analogies?

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That's not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain. Kicking a baby is not the same as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don't map to each other.

You can't dodge flaws in your argument by adding a "don't respond unless you agree with me" clause on your comment.

[–] Zeus@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That's not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain

actually that's exactly what i was using it for.

Kicking a baby is not the same[^1] as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don't map to each other.

if you read carefully, you'll see that writing is analogous to creating an artwork, and kicking a baby is analogous to doing something that someone has asked you not to, and you're continuing anyways. if you read even more carefully, you'll see that i implied i wasn't making a moral comment on ai, piracy, or even kicking babies

You can't dodge flaws in your argument by adding a "don't respond unless you agree with me" clause on your comment.

i didn't intend to. i did it so i wouldn't have to waste my time arguing with those who don't understand analogies. however i seem to be doing that anyways, so if you'll excuse me, i'm going to stop

edit: okay, i've been reading the rest of this thread, and you clearly don't understand analogy. i have no idea why you clicked on my comment

[^1]: yes. analogous doesn't mean "the same". it means "able to draw demonstrative parallels between